101 replies to this topic

[Lazenby]

Terrance Young and Martin Campbell got it right whereas Marc Forster has now joined John Glen in the group of directors who got it wrong. Connery’s killing scene in Dr. No was the single scene that set Connery firmly in the character. The set up, filming, lighting and mood were perfect. In addition, Connery’s casualness/ruthlessness was perfect. Campbell duplicated this in the beginning of Casino Royal, creating the right mood, with Craig also killing his subject from the seated position.

John Glen had the same opportunity in the Living Daylights when Dalton was about to assassinate M’s counterpart in the KGB. Instead of taking the time to create the mood and showing a darker side of the character, he rushed through it, having Dalton look stiff and uneasy.

Marc Forster was handed an ending that had a lot of meaning and substance, and he blew it. There was no mood created and Craig looked like Dalton as opposed to how he acquitted himself in the beginning of Casino Royal. Campbell took a scene where there was no history with the participants and made into something of substance all because he got the mood and acting right. Imaging the impact if Quantum’s ending had the same feel of the beginning of Casino Royal.

Forster has joined the list of directors who obviously never got what Bond was. Thanks for your crappy interpretation Marc.

[sharpshooter]

I think the scene was handled fine. Nothing much wrong with it. I also liked the fact he didn't kill Yusef. It makes sense in the evolution of the narrative.

The entire film he is killing off possible leads, and at the end he lets one live. He grew as a character and gained his quantum of solace.

[Harmsway]

I strongly disagree, Laz. Both about the Dalton scene and the scene in QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

[tdalton]

I thought that the scene was handled superbly. Aside from some truly awful editing in QoS, I can't really find too much else wrong with it, and this includes the ending.

[Judo chop]

Bond's final line missed the mark a little bit for me (it didn't impact as much as I suspect it was meant to do) but otherwise, I really haven't a clue what you're saying.

Not to be snide. Really. I just don't know what you're getting at.

[delfloria]

I don't get what you are on about either. The final scenes, including "I never left" was handled extremely well. You can't top Bond walking away OUT of the shadows and into the light. He has found his Quantum of Solace, finally.

[JimmyBond]

Forster has joined the list of directors who obviously never got what Bond was. Thanks for your crappy interpretation Marc.

And you've joined the list of fans who just don't get what this film is all about.

[byline]

and Craig looked like Dalton.

If I were Craig, I would take that as a compliment.

[Captain Tightpants]

Terrance Young and Martin Campbell got it right whereas Marc Forster has now joined John Glen in the group of directors who got it wrong. Connery’s killing scene in Dr. No was the single scene that set Connery firmly in the character. The set up, filming, lighting and mood were perfect. In addition, Connery’s casualness/ruthlessness was perfect. Campbell duplicated this in the beginning of Casino Royal, creating the right mood, with Craig also killing his subject from the seated position.

John Glen had the same opportunity in the Living Daylights when Dalton was about to assassinate M’s counterpart in the KGB. Instead of taking the time to create the mood and showing a darker side of the character, he rushed through it, having Dalton look stiff and uneasy.

Marc Forster was handed an ending that had a lot of meaning and substance, and he blew it. There was no mood created and Craig looked like Dalton as opposed to how he acquitted himself in the beginning of Casino Royal. Campbell took a scene where there was no history with the participants and made into something of substance all because he got the mood and acting right. Imaging the impact if Quantum’s ending had the same feel of the beginning of Casino Royal.

Forster has joined the list of directors who obviously never got what Bond was. Thanks for your crappy interpretation Marc.

Actors can ruin films as well. Your namesake was the most wooden actor to take on any role in the franchise ...

[avl]

And the whole point of the film is that Bond does not make that choice...

woosh

[Zorin Industries]

Terrance Young and Martin Campbell got it right whereas Marc Forster has now joined John Glen in the group of directors who got it wrong. Connery’s killing scene in Dr. No was the single scene that set Connery firmly in the character. The set up, filming, lighting and mood were perfect. In addition, Connery’s casualness/ruthlessness was perfect. Campbell duplicated this in the beginning of Casino Royal, creating the right mood, with Craig also killing his subject from the seated position.

John Glen had the same opportunity in the Living Daylights when Dalton was about to assassinate M’s counterpart in the KGB. Instead of taking the time to create the mood and showing a darker side of the character, he rushed through it, having Dalton look stiff and uneasy.

Marc Forster was handed an ending that had a lot of meaning and substance, and he blew it.

Was he? What script update pages did you get?

There was no mood created and Craig looked like Dalton as opposed to how he acquitted himself in the beginning of Casino Royal. Campbell took a scene where there was no history with the participants and made into something of substance all because he got the mood and acting right. Imaging the impact if Quantum’s ending had the same feel of the beginning of Casino Royal.

There was great "mood" created in the final Russian scenes in SOLACE. They are what sets out the film from ROYALE. Martin Campbell is not the best of directors. He got lucky with ROYALE, but the rest of his films (GOLDENEYE particularly) are under-directed, over reliant on the second unit and actually badly shot (GOLDENEYE is full of mid-shots that make the whole thing look like it was shot for TV).

Forster has joined the list of directors who obviously never got what Bond was.

Is there room for that considering the room marked "never got what Bond was" is full to the rafters of nostalgic fans right now? Bond ain't Chekov or Pinter folks. Forster knew exactly what Bond is and pushed it as hard as he could.


Thanks for your crappy interpretation Marc.

[SecretAgentFan]

Well done, Zorin. Another cadet, though...

[dee-bee-five]

For me, QoS has the best ending of any Bond filnm save for, perhaps, OHMSS. The script, direction and performances all gel into something above and beyond what one can reasonably expect from an action-adventure movie (much as QoS does throughout its whole running length, actually).

Thank God they didn't go with the alleged/proposed intended final cliffhanger scene which would have totally ruined this most perfect of endings and been totally gratuitous.

[stamper]

Too bad then that the ending was actually the beginning of the movie !

Yes, that's what I think. Foster never shot two ending, he just used the pre-credit sequence as a new ending when the original didn't work, using some extra coverage of M with a stand-in for Craig, and overdubbing to make it relevant.

I think the movie originally started in black and white, with Craig awaiting the algerian boyfriend. Think about it, the scene makes sense. It's all characterisation, and no action, just setting up exactly how Foster original intent is.
This scene is filmed in color, but the colors are drab (very different from the rest of the movie where the colors are bold), just like they do when they shoot for black and white (ie it's shot in color, and processed later to become black and white to have more control).
Craig says "I never left", which wraps up him giving his resignation at the end of CR. I think that when Craig left M in the snow, we switched back, still in black and white, to the end of CR scene, to Mr White on the phone getting shot by Bond. As 007 said "Bond, James Bond", we then then switched to the actual pre-credits of QOS, the car chase etc.

More stuff to chew on : The scene where M talks about the algerian boy-friend faking his death right in Sienna conveniently happens outside of the main interrogation room where White is, and there are many continuity errors on Craig's clothes in this scene. Reshoots ?

I think the movie was still in black and white for a long while, until until Bond shot Mitchell. Then, when Bond shoots him, it probably switched back like CR to color with the blood dripping gunbarrel.

Another one is that the first press footage leaked to the public were from the snow discussion with M. When was the last time a 007 movie publicity started with the filmmakers showing the ending to the public ? Never. It's place at the end is obviously a last minute replacement to the original cut ending, and this stuff was the beginning. It's obvious if you seen the movie two or three times, where reshoots and dubbing is occuring during M's talk with 007 if you look carefully, or where new footage re: Algerian man "faked" death is included. Even Craig's face isn't the same from shot to shot.

[avl]

I think the ending is a deliberate book end/counterpart to the PTS of CR - both featuring Bond in the dark (and snow) waiting for someone.

"I never left" is a perfect end line for this film

[Zorin Industries]

Too bad then that the ending was actually the beginning of the movie !

Yes, that's what I think. Foster never shot two ending, he just used the pre-credit sequence as a new ending when the original didn't work, using some extra coverage of M with a stand-in for Craig, and overdubbing to make it relevant.

I think the movie originally started in black and white, with Craig awaiting the algerian boyfriend. Think about it, the scene makes sense. It's all characterisation, and no action, just setting up exactly how Foster original intent is.
This scene is filmed in color, but the colors are drab (very different from the rest of the movie where the colors are bold), just like they do when they shoot for black and white (ie it's shot in color, and processed later to become black and white to have more control).
Craig says "I never left", which wraps up him giving his resignation at the end of CR. I think that when Craig left M in the snow, we switched back, still in black and white, to the end of CR scene, to Mr White on the phone getting shot by Bond. As 007 said "Bond, James Bond", we then then switched to the actual pre-credits of QOS, the car chase etc.

More stuff to chew on : The scene where M talks about the algerian boy-friend faking his death right in Sienna conveniently happens outside of the main interrogation room where White is, and there are many continuity errors on Craig's clothes in this scene. Reshoots ?

I think the movie was still in black and white for a long while, until until Bond shot Mitchell. Then, when Bond shoots him, it probably switched back like CR to color with the blood dripping gunbarrel.

Another one is that the first press footage leaked to the public were from the snow discussion with M. When was the last time a 007 movie publicity started with the filmmakers showing the ending to the public ? Never. It's place at the end is obviously a last minute replacement to the original cut ending, and this stuff was the beginning. It's obvious if you seen the movie two or three times, where reshoots and dubbing is occuring during M's talk with 007 if you look carefully, or where new footage re: Algerian man "faked" death is included. Even Craig's face isn't the same from shot to shot.

Oh dear.

Your thoughts regarding colour versus black and white couldn't be more wrong. You can shoot in colour and switch it to black and white afterwards, but this is not a student production. This is Bond. And this is real cinema. And real cinema with a budget the size of Bond does not shoot colour to later transfer. It is not the same. Ask any cinematographer. The lighting variants are vast.

The Canadian agent CORRINE is referenced during the Tosca scenes as someone Quantum can fall back on and squeeze if needs be. If she'd been dispatched in the opening scene that would have made no sense.

You say "When was the last time a 007 movie publicity started with the filmmakers showing the ending to the public ? Never. It's place at the end is obviously a last minute replacement to the original cut ending, and this stuff was the beginning".....

And when did a final trailer show how Bond kills the villain in its opening frame? It is all about context - i.e. we didn't know what it was so it doesn't matter. I've seen all sorts of on-set footage from films over the years and the last thing anyone should do is speculate where those scenes are to end up.

Did you notice how Marc Forster structured HIS movie? He would not have started with one location - Russia - then cut a set piece somewhere else BEFORE the credits. And ROYALE started in black and white. Why would the next director as someone as focused and personal as Forster want to ape "the other fella".

"Continuity errors on Craig's clothes...." Please! This is cinema. It about artifice. If you want to count the blood stains on a shirt, then fine. Do it.

And if you knew anything about storytelling and performance you would know that Dench and Craig are delivering that last scene as two people who have been on a journey throughout SOLACE. They have both been on a learning curve. What would the point be of starting with that tone?

Besides, FOR THE RECORD STAMPER, JAMES BOND IS AFTER YUSUF THROUGHOUT THE FILM - NOT DOMINIC GREENE. Craig notes to CAMILLE, "I think we are both using GREENE to get to someone else" (MEDRANO for CAMILLE and YUSUF for BOND). Where is the motivation for 007 for the entire film if the Russian scenes were meant to rid the narrative of YUSUF in the first act? Your argument makes no sense.

[Pierce - Daniel]

I diagree with TLD comment, the moment Bond kills Pushkin is fantastic, I always saw it as a slight homage to the gunbarrel when Necros pulls the light on to him. I love that scene when I first saw it I was so shocked that Pushkin had died, it was so bloody and his wife crying over him was actually very sad. But we all know what hppened next.

Craig and Forster did great in the Yusef scene, those who missed the point of this scene then I reconmend you watch the film again it is very meaningful, just watch Craig's eyes they never blink he is so cold and ruthless and all that it just streamed through his blue peepers.

[stamper]

007 isn't after Yussuf, he is after Mr White. That's where the original ending came into play.
Also, the opening of CR was shot in color. No one shoots in bw direct in movies anymore, using color and special stock makes for more freedom in post. Even french bw movies like "La Haine" are shot in color. But when you intend to bw, the set designer the the DP agree on the color palette first, that's what happened with CR pre-credits. So the color palette is muted, and that is EXACTLY how this scene is. It's even apparent in the trailer, it doesn't fit with the rest of the movie re the colors (just watch the shot where Bond says "this gentleman and I have unfinished business").
The algerian boyfriend is small fry, that's why it makes light sense to finish on this guy, he should have been at the beginning to get written off. The ending is only there because as Foster said, the real intended ending didn't work (or was rejected by the powers that be).

[Zorin Industries]

007 isn't after Yussuf, he is after Mr White. That's where the original ending came into play.
Also, the opening of CR was shot in color. No one shoots in bw direct in movies anymore, using color and special stock makes for more freedom in post. Even french bw movies like "La Haine" are shot in color.
The algerian boyfriend is small fry, that's why it makes light sense to finish on this guy, he should have been at the beginning to get written off.

"The original ending".....?! What fan planet are you on?!

So how long have you been a cinematographer or indeed your friends been DOP's?

And who on earth told you that no-one films in black and white anymore?!! You really need to stop harvesting your knowledge of cinema from the internet and Wikipedia.

No - the Algerian boyfriend is not small fry. He has been trusted by Quantum to goad and misuse the Canadian agent. Furthermore, VESPER needed to get that money for LE CHIFFRE. Who do you think made that betrayal and duplicity possible - YUSUF, that's who. He is not small fry as every part of Quantum's machinations thus far have hinged upon the success of his love conquests and subsequent betrayals.

For BOND, YUSUF represents the solace he desperately needs. Bond needed to know that VESPER was being used by YUSUF and that his emotions weren't being used.

[Loomis]

Also, the opening of CR was shot in color.

Are you sure about this? I seem to recall one of the DVD special features pointing out that it was indeed shot on B&W stock. Can't be bothered to check, though, so you may be correct, stamper. No biggie, I guess.

[Bradley De La Cloche]

Stamper, your complete lack of logic never ceases to amaze me.

[MattofSteel]

There are some classic examples of things with which I blatantly, totally, and completely disagree with every fibre of my being in this thread.

The ending of QoS was one of the strongest things in the films, a perfect symbolic bookend to this dual-parted origin story, and executed in such a way that it maximizes tension and invokes a contemporary style whilst being incredibly nostalgic at the same time.

Good god.

[Publius]

Too bad then that the ending was actually the beginning of the movie !

Yes, that's what I think. Foster never shot two ending, he just used the pre-credit sequence as a new ending when the original didn't work, using some extra coverage of M with a stand-in for Craig, and overdubbing to make it relevant.

Conspiracy theory alert!

But seriously, I loved the ending. Not as bombastic as that of CR, but then again it shouldn't have been. They saved that for what came last. "I never left," Bond walking into the cold Russian night (and actually out of the shadows, as delfloria pointed out), the Algerian loveknot discarded in the snow, and finally the debut of Craig's traditional gunbarrel all combined to make for one of the most powerful Bond endings ever (for me, rivaled only by OHMSS and CR) and marked a significant transition to a new chapter in Bond's life and career.

Besides, FOR THE RECORD STAMPER, JAMES BOND IS AFTER YUSUF THROUGHOUT THE FILM - NOT DOMINIC GREENE.

Correct. Hence their off-screen conversation during their ride in the desert. "I told you what you wanted to know." I only wonder what other information Bond was able to squeeze out of that slimy reptile and what it bodes for Bond 23.

[Vauxhall]

I'm not sure if stamper is just being difficult here, but the pre-title sequence in CASINO ROYALE was always intended to be in black and white. I think it's even mentioned in the script.

Secondly, the Yusef scene was never intended to be the opening scene in QUANTUM OF SOLACE. It was shot in the first week of filming, and listed as scene 168 in the movie there and then.

[bondrules]

I want to get the last 5 minutes of my life back.

[ImTheMoneypenny]

I must respectfully disagree.

I thought the final scenes were handled beautifully as others have said. They was one of the strongest parts of the film.

Edited by ImTheMoneypenny, 18 November 2008 - 04:21 PM.

[bondrules]

I mean after reading this thread.....I loved the ending

[DamnCoffee]

007 isn't after Yussuf, he is after Mr White. That's where the original ending came into play.

Wrong. Bond went after Yusseff, as Greene probably gave him information on his whereabouts. The trail on White went cold, which is why Bond didn't spot him at the Opera. Plus, If Bond wasn't after Yuseff, then why the whole backstory at the beginning?

Also, the opening of CR was shot in color. No one shoots in bw direct in movies anymore, using color and special stock makes for more freedom in post. Even french bw movies like "La Haine" are shot in color. But when you intend to bw, the set designer the the DP agree on the color palette first, that's what happened with CR pre-credits.

Wrong. The Pre Titles of Casino Royale were always meant to be in black and white. I remember Campbell saying it symbolises that Bond was an ordinary agent. The moment he gets his Double 0 we get the red blood, which symbolises he has earnt his licence to kill.

It's even apparent in the trailer, it doesn't fit with the rest of the movie re the colors (just watch the shot where Bond says "this gentleman and I have unfinished business").

Wrong, it's "This man and I have unfinished buisiness"

The ending is only there because as Foster said, the real intended ending didn't work (or was rejected by the powers that be).

Wrong. If you actually read the interview, Forster said: "There was a scene AFTER the film ends now..." So, no. That scene was always intended to be at the end of the movie.

[Painted Gold]

I liked the bit with M out in the snow and the 'I never left' was cool especially as there had been rumours/spoilers that he quits the service. I also liked the gun barrel at the end and the suggestion that we are now going to see yet another side to Bond.

I didn't think the Yusef/Bond/Canadian agent scene was handled well at all. I know Forster was going for understated but that was a bit TOO understated for my liking. I didn't want Bond to go in and kill Yusef and as previous posters have said I like the idea that Bond is supposed to have 'matured' and found his QofS. I just didn't get that emotional response from the scene! I found it rushed, jarring and strange, especially the 'thank you' bit.

A total stranger with a gun has broken into the apartment and told this girl the man she loves is actually a cold hearted, lying bastard... she believes him without question, says 'thank you' and calmly walks out? I just didn't believe the reaction and it ruined the scene for me. Maybe if she already knew Bond then she'd have a reason to believe him without question. If she already suspected Yusef or perhaps was acting as a double agent then that needed to be mentioned earlier for her reaction (or lack of) to have made sense.

I am hoping when I watch it again I might appreciate it more but my knee jerk reaction to it was...wtf, that's the end?

[tdalton]

A total stranger with a gun has broken into the apartment and told this girl the man she loves is actually a cold hearted, lying bastard... she believes him without question, says 'thank you' and calmly walks out? I just didn't believe the reaction and it ruined the scene for me. Maybe if she already knew Bond then she'd have a reason to believe him without question. If she already suspected Yusef or perhaps was acting as a double agent then that needed to be mentioned earlier for her reaction (or lack of) to have made sense.

I think that, and I could be wrong, Bond's posession of the same love-knot necklace that she was wearing and his detailed explanation about what Yusef was doing and his knowledge of exactly who she was convinced her that he was right and that Yusef was not who he claimed to be.